tv The Young Turks With Cenk Uygur Current April 18, 2013 4:00pm-5:00pm PDT
[ explosion ] [ screaming ] >> cenk: now, one of them was scene leaving a backpack obviously near where the explosion happened. that is why they're suspects. keep in mind also for the moment being they're just suspects. we don't know with any definitive word at all whether they actually did do it. you would have to arrest them. you would have to question them, and then you would have to have a trial. so for most important thing for christ' stake do not assume you figured out who these guys are and take action on your own. that is a terrible, disastrous path. don't go down that path. before i bring my panel i wanted to bring in president obama. he was at a vigil today. he spoke out forcefully on this issue. let's watch. >> obama: you're involved to
whoever created this heinous attack. they thought to intimidate us terrorize us and shake the values of who we are as americans, well, it should be pretty clear by now that they picked the wrong way to do it. >> cenk: that is president obama in an interfaith vigil in boston. we have michael shure michael shure and tricia rose and noah, great to have you all here. let me start on the issue that i think everybody in the country is talking about and of course this is speculation. i'm just going to put that out there as the most obvious thing in the world but there is no way we can't have that conversation. what race are they?
and later we'll add what race do you want them to be? keeping it real. michael, can you tell? >> i mean you can tell with suspect number two with the whitecap going backwards that he appears white to me. suspect number one, i couldn't tell. >> but he has the kind of scruff--and i'm going to get into gross racial stereotypes. he could have been--he looks more white to be honest. he looks like he has got a mustache and that could come from the midwest or the middle east. >> he looks like a frat boy. he looks like a bro. he has the hat on backwards. >> and they could have the hats on backwards in the middle east as well. >> of course they can. but you're playing a game. >> cnn said it was going to be a dark-skinned man.
most people assumed that was middle eastern. but are you breathing a slight sigh of relief that they're not black? [ inaudible ] >> cenk: all right we couldn't hear professor rose. we're going to come back to her. so that question will be answered later. noah let me go to you is this conversation out of bounds, or does it make sense and what are your thoughts on it, go. >> it's relevant, but it's not race that's relevant. it's not ethnicity that is relevant it's nationality. whether or not we're talking about a foreign directed operation or an operation that is domestic it has a lot of legal bearing and and to say it's racial, it's out of bounds and inflammatory. >> if this were a muslim michael, and an americanamerican or
american, don't you think it would be different than if it's a white american. >> it shouldn't be. >> cenk: let's keep it real. i think you're right over all. is it domestic or international that's a huge difference and that's what we're trying to ascertain. but michael is also right. it's not like at fort hood, oh, he's american? fine fine. >> exactly. >> cenk: this is just being realistic here. is it fair to root for one race or nationality than another. david sirota brought this up and got a lot of heat for. i never went there. but today looking at the pictures i had to be honest with myself i was rooting for non- non-middle east. >> i was rooting for a white guy because i know the way america
is reactionary and the way they they were after sikh indians yeah, after a profile like that, it keeps the flames down. if it's a white american guy that's what i was rooting for. i'll confess. i didn't write it like david did, but i thought it. >> cenk: while i was thinking about why i was rooting for non-middle eastern the thoughts in my head is we're more likely not to overreaction if they're white. we're more likely to overreact if they're middle eastern. and number two, there's not the reaction in the country oh, that's it. we hate white people. do you have a different take on that? >> i understand what you're saying but it's nevertheless advancing a political agenda. we're hoping that the outcome of
this event the worst attack on american soil since 9/11 advances a political agenda i find that unconscionable reaction from sirota or anyone else in that fashion. >> cenk: i'm not sure it's about advancing a political agenda. i just want to limit the damage that could happen if we overreact, if it's a muslim. and that's born of experience. men nadel hue san did it, the army and fbi concluded it was actually just a lone actor. he did not coordinate with any other country, etc. i was at a right right-wing seminar that had a louie go merit, etc. they had all these videos, nadel hue san, part of an islamic plot. we have to get them before they get us. >> that's not entirely true. hue san had coordinated with
all-awlaki. we node that is true. he was radicalized. >> cenk: that's fair to say there was correspondence beforehand. but the fbi looked into that correspondence and so did the army and conclude it was not ordered by al-awalaki. that he acted on his own and he was mentally embalanced. there was no coordination in that sense. it was not from muslim to muslim. >> he was radicalized by an ideology and his mental imbalanced allowed him to buy in that ideology. and there are people in their 20s who are open to being radicalized. i'm not sure what ideology that is but they're susceptible to radicalization of ideology.
>> cenk: noah brings up an interesting point. if it turns out that they're militant right wingers then do we need to look into the right wing ideology and see what's wrong with it? should we start to look at right wingers with the same wary eye that they do with muslims. >> it's cart before the horse because we don't know what kind of right wing extremists there. america learned about the militia movement in the oklahoma oklahoma and the michigan militia was behind oklahoma with timothy mcveigh. if this is some right wing extremist group we need to know more before we can say what we need to do. >> cenk: you say hey look, if it's muslim ideology that's relevant. we know there is an ideology
that is right wing. we don't know if it's in this case. we have no idea who these people are and why they did it but but there is a long history of abortion bombings and timothy mcveigh, is it time to look into extremist right wing ideology more closely and pay more attention to it in terms of police work, department of homeland security efforts etc. >> well again, we are putting the cart before the horse, and i would agree with you. if we can establish that kind of definitive link, yes possibly. but we're not talking about a demographic profile it that makes sense. you're mentioning a whole bunch of events that were conducted by older white guys. we're talking about kids in their 20s who are not particularly right wing. and if we say the same thing--i'm blocking on his name but the guy who flew his
airplane in the irs building in texas in 2009-2010 who had a left wing screed in his manifesto, it would have been wholly inappropriate to go after left wing ideology because one guy did something horrific. i think we're out out of bounds. >> that is part of my point. going after ideology, i don't know what it means? whether it's a muslim ideology or extremist right wing wing ideology. >> well, that's what we did last time in 9/11 we went after an ideology and i dare say we're still going after that ideology and we don't even know what it is. it cost us a couple of wars and hundreds of thousands of lives. you have to be very careful when go after an ideology. i hope it's a white person who did this. i hope it's a heinous goof. i hope it's a kid with his white
hat backwards who did something horrific. >> cenk: we don't want it sob something larger. we don't want it connected to anything else. we don't want the next thing to happen. we want it to be a lone wolf so we can say at least we're not as concerned about the next step, right? >> that's exactly right. >> cenk: this is an interesting conversation. i want to keep this going and i want to talk about the new york post the new york post put up the wrong pictures of wrong people and the fbi said something in reaction to the new york post, stop putting up the wrong pictures. i want to talk about the explosion in texas. we'll talk about that as well. come right back.
>> if you believe in state's rights but still support the drug war you must be high. >> "viewpoint" digs deep into the issues of the day. >> do you think that there is any chance we'll see this president even say the words "carbon tax"? >> with an open mind... >> has the time finally come for real immigration reform? >> ...and a distinctly satirical point of view. >> but you mentioned "great leadership" so i want to talk about donald rumsfeld. >> (laughter). >> watch the show. >> only on current tv. >> cenk: we're back on "the young turks" with more pictures of suspect one and suspect two and you know, it's interesting because if they are from a different country, it's been a couple of days now we don't know where they are right now. they could be in the wind.
they could be gone. and now look, nine out of ten times when we're looking for somebody, it turns out they're right next to where we were looking. you know, we'll see but if they planned this in advance, and they knew it was not like christopher dorner that is kind of started to happen and snowballed they might have planned this out and had an escape route and they could be gone. it's a scary thought the idea that we might never get them. now that their pictures are out there, i'm again reminded of the story when i was on geraldo's radio show, a guy called in from boston and said, i'm a southy. they better hope that the cops find them before we help them. taking it out of "pulp fiction" saying we've got blowtorches and pliers, and we want to go to work on these guys. do not make assumptions on their race, nationality or anything
else based on these pictures. if you think you've seen them, 1-800-call fbi. leave it up to the professional. we have professor rose. >> all right. >> cenk: hey, there we go. i want to go back to the question. it's very unlikely that the race was going to be black but were you slight will i relieved that they're clearly not black? >> well, let me answer a slightly different question that emerged from that interesting conversation that you had. i thought it was fascinating that your first set of questions was, what happens what are the potential consequences if this is a person of color, a dark-skinned person of color and the relief of hoping that they might not be one had not to do with individualism or ideology but an extensive history of america in race-based vigilantism. our country has had hundreds of years of race-based vigilantism
against dark-skinned people. it has been supported by turning the cheek when it has gone on. it's an important thing to talk about. not to worry about ideologies of people who did it, but when you show pictures of brown people who are accused of things without due process we have hundreds of years of lynching african-american men based on not any evidence but vague speculation that went on literally unchallenged. i think that's a fair question to raise. we have a very serious color hire averagehierarchy, and it happens sub carsly. we can't tell people, don't overreact. really, it's to say we have a serious history. we need to step back and be
honest about it if we're going to act responsibly and an multi racial democracy. >> cenk: noah, is that fair? we know there's not going to be anti-white crime based on this. oh they're white let's hit random white people. >> just after virginia tech and the shooting at the sikh temple. there wasn't outrage of koreans. bus they are the ones who committed those crimes. it's a leap of logic that doesn't have a whole lot of modern history. and i understand what the professor is saying and she's 100% correct. but in the modern era when we're talking about terror events, mass casualty events there has not been a whole lot of lashing out at people. >> not only is that not true, but the issue here is will the racial anxiety of the history
which is absolutely going on today most police profiling is based almost entirely on race, gender and class with blackness being the most initial category. the question is whether or not if it happens to all people of color, the question is what is the idea that perhaps someone with dark skin is responsible what will that tie in to. this is not just a historical matter. it goes on, on all levels, maybe not the level of lynchings but there is a level of institutional violence and institutional discrimination based on color. and we can absolutely imagine that this could happen here. >> cenk: also, there was specifically violence against muslims and most especially against sikhs after 9/11, and that continued for a long time, including the sikh shooting that just happened recently, right? and i saw with my own two eyes, too, i was born muslim, and i'm walking by in west hollywood right after 9/11.
i forget if it was a month or two months, and out of a bus a guy spits on a sikh guy in front of me. that's sucks and it's terrible, but it's much, much worse people god killed based on that. i want to move to the new york post. the new york post ran--you want to talk about irresponsible we're having a conversation with a lot of caveats. don't take action. we don't know what race they are, etc. the new york post puts up a picture and calls them the bag men. and turns out those two kids didn't do it at all. it's the 17-year-old track star and the guy identified there is salar bartun. >> it's moroccan. >> cenk: the "washington post" said, yeah we stand by our story. they were seeking information about these men. they were not identified as
suspects. you just put them on the cover of your newspaper and said bag men. >> just because they--yes this picture was e-mailed to law enforcement. so we should put it on the front cover. that's exactly what we're talking about. noah was saying before the ideas there is no precedent, there is no recent precedent. you said at 9/11, of course there is precedent saying about what they did, all the things that they said about muslim americans. how many reasonable people you know say i got on a plane and there were arabs on the plane and these are reasonable people in the wake of 9/11. whether it's human reflex or not, it happens and not only did it happen in recent history it happened yesterday on the new york post. they're excited to inflame. it's irresponsible that they should public page six as an one sheet and forget the whole paper paper. >> cenk: it's also partly a matter of numbers. noah, look the country is as a
majority white. you're not going to get on a plane, to go along with michael's story and say oh, my god, there is a white guy next to me. as a matter of numbers you would never say that. but now the reality is there is a billion muslims in the world but not in america. and if 9/11 was a muslim guy and boston was a muslim guy, oh my god there is a muslim next to me. do you say that point there noah as to why people-- >> i understand-- >> cenk: yes, go ahead. >> i do understand what you're saying. to go to michael's point. he seemed to suggest that the new york post had published these unconscionable pictures and linking them to terrorist. he seemed to think there was a racial element to them.
those pictures were used through a series of read it posts where they are identified through lines of sight. it was convinces although 100% circumstantial for them to run with that is not responsible. but i don't know if there is a racial component. >> you're being like the new york post. at no time did i say they put up pictures of children or insinuated that they put up pictures of children. >> i said that. they put up pictures of children. >> they put up pictures of people they insinuated were guilty. they made it seem that these people were going. >> cenk: racial or not racial. i love read it, but i would never take something off of read it that was circumstantial and put it on the front page, especially for people who look for vigilante justice.
we have to take this with a giant grain of assault but we're hearing that cbs is reporting that the authorities might have their names. if they have their names they're far more likely to find them. that would be great news. that is coming from cbs. we'll update you on the show as we go along. i'm going to take another break here. i want to come back and talk about the explosion in texas. you know, what implications does it have? does it appear to be intention intentional? i think it has very important implications. we'll talk about that when we return. with award winning documentaries that take you inside the headlines. real, gripping, current. documentaries... on current tv.
>> cover your ears. get out of here. please get out of here. please get out of here. please get out of here. >> cenk: wow that's the video of the explosion that happened last night in west texas about 20 miles outside of waco, texas. that was at a fertilizer plant. you know, i heard the story two days before the anniversary of the waco raid in the middle of april there is a giant explosion near waco. it turns out it's not related which is amazing. so now "abc news" has more on this. >> when this massive explosion startedshattered the calm sending a shockwave through this small town of 1800. this afternoon rain is easing concerns of deadly chemicals being spread by the winds but officials still don't know how many people are dead or missing.
at this point they're still saying"sayanything with joy beharring" 5 to 15 have been killed and almost 200 injured. they're going house to house hoping to find survivors. firefighters responded to the fertilizer plant at 6:30 last night. but while fighting the flames something ignited. starting a massive explosion. several of the first responders mostly volunteer firefighters are among the missing. >> cenk: originally they were saying 15 dead and 160 injured. buzzfeed just reporting now again when it's just very recent take it with a grain of salt they're reporting the number might be 40 dead. just wiped down blocks in this area. it hit homes. it hit schools. some of the firemen who responded bravely were killed in the explosion as well. right now authorities don't believe it is intentional at
all, and that's amazing. i want to bring everybody back in here. right after the boston bombings, as well, you know, when i first heard the story i thought oh my--there are no coincidences is what i normally think but it looks like this is a coincidence, an amazing and horrible coincidence. michael, it's interesting that more people are killed, more people are injured in texas but it gets a lot less attention because it's not intentional. >> of course, it's a tragedy. april is the cruelest month thing is really rearing it's head. it does not sound surprising that that would happen. it's an absolute tragedy. i think we're all--our jaws dropped when we saw that explosion and heard that little girl or that little boy talking to her father. this is perpetrated in boston by people against people. these are innocent victims the same thing but there was a perpetrator there. >> cenk: let me flow this out out--throw this out to you guys.
this plant was fined for failing a risk management plan that met ferrell standards. they were fined $2,600. that was all the way back in 2006. it's a small fine and we don't know to the extent that they had broken regulations. when asked what is the worst-case scenario what could happen at at a fertilizing plant they said, the worst possible scenario is a ten-minute release of ammonia gas that would kill and your no one. that did not turn out to be the case. when it's terrorism tricia, everyone is concerned that it could happen again. but if you don't follow regulations at at a fertilizer plant it could also happen again. >> i think one of the things we want to keep our ears open for is the possibility that lax regulation and lax enforcement state, local or ferrell federal to
make sure that the public is protect is something that we want to pay attention to. it's not unreasonable that some of these guidelines and some of these regulation regulations have been either softened or enforcement has been so cut back that it's difficult to follow up. i understood--and i'm not sure if this is true, and cenk you might have more information. but the volunteer firemen fought the fire with water when some other compound might have been necessary. i'm not sure, but being trained and having enough trained personnel to respond to the wide range of inflammatory chemicals we work with is important. but that means money. our public safety could be at risk given the ways we think we need to respond to our financial crisis. >> cenk: i want to be clear. we don't have information right
now that the company was negligent in any way before this explosion happened. we don't know that, but they should very thoroughly investigate given the consequences of it. but noah, as a general principle this is why liberals call for regulations. sometimes you need safety regulations so that a fertilizer plant doesn't blow up. >> yes, and then there is an accident. there is no indication that regulations were not followed, protocol it's were ignore. what we understand right now this is a horrific industrial accident. it's not unprecedented. these things do happen. this will be studied and every recommendation that is made should be pursued. but as of now to suggest there is some sort of negligence here is again something that is a stretch, and it's not supported by any facts we have at the moment. >> cenk: i know you're a conservative and you're not a libertarian. that's my sense and you can
correct me if i'm wrong, but this is my main issue with libertarians. i clarified we don't know if there was negligence at all whether they they were following regulations or not. but libertarians believe that the free market will work itself out. and i think the government might rightfully put a lot more regulation into situations that are more volatile. for example, a fertilizer plant blew up in france as well after 9/11. obviously a volatile situation. wouldn't it call for more regulation. >> i'm not down the line libertarian myself but if i were to put myself in those shoes the theory would be that it's a bad business move to let your plant explode. the free market would not allow for a plant to explode because that's a bad business model. this is not something that i subscribe to and i'm probably
not doing very much justice. this is the free market would sort itself out because the pursuit of capital would allow this company to make the right decisions in pursuit of that effort and avoid industrial accidents like this. but there is no way to avoid accidents 100% of the time, and bad things happen. >> two quick things. one, i think that if there is a chance that this type or this size explosion is possible based on the ways in which this fertilizer was kept in the company's space then it seems to me almost no matter what we have a problem. that is to say this type of volume of explosion wouldn't be possible if it certain types of requirements for where why and under what conditions you would hole this kind of volatile material were in place. so that's number one. it's not just a random accident. this is a huge explosion.
there are some likely outcomes when you have large amounts of inflammatory material. the second thing i realize noah is not speaking as a libertarian but i want to respond what i thought was a pretty reasonable description of the approach. it's an absurd position to hold that he's describing and helping us see because, look, businesses are not fixed. businesses are global and mobile. and whatever is both the cheapest and what they can get away with is a one very possible and probably business model. but it doesn't. they don't have to stay in texas. they can go all over the world literally maiming workers for long term with little long-term risk and very significant short-term profit. businesses move. they transform themselves. they morph into other things. to expect the market to protect citizens and workers is a complete fiction that is in this case obviously potentially dangerous.
>> and another thing speaking of what i presume to be--noah's--the way he would look at this, yes, it was an accident, but historically we've learned from accidents like this. from the triangle shirt ways and we don't want another b.p. oil spill, who change nothing about the way they operate in the future. if tricia is right and they shouldn't store that much, we've learned it in a horrible way and we have to make sure that we don't do it again. that's where the oil companies refuse to listen and we hope that the fertilizer companies will. >> cenk: don't put schools near fertilizer plants. if it had gone off during the day it would have been much worse. we'll talk about what went down in the gun bell, and did the democrats screw up big time but
[ ♪ theme music ♪ ] >> cenk: we're back on "the young turks." yesterday we had a dramatic vote on the background checks on gun control bill and this is how it went. >> the yays are 54. the nays are 46. requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment. the amendment is not agreed to. >> shame on you. >> there will be order in the senate. the gallery will refrain from any demonstration or comment. >> cenk: well, we got 54 votes so obviously we won--wait i'm getting word we did not win, oh
right, there was a filibuster. harry reid said this situation was taken care of. they did filibuster reform at the beginning of congress. [ laughing ] these will, quote weaken the ability to seek to obstructionist for obstructionist sake will reform reform--come on, man. what kind of yoke is this? if these reforms are not enough to end gridlock in washington we'll consider doing more in the future. when, when are you going to do it? michael, what degree of blame do the democrats particularly harry reid get for this bill failing because they didn't do filibuster. >> comedy and comedy, the way he spelled it and the way it wound up. the democrats deserve a great deal of blame. the senators deserve all the blame on this. it's not just democrats. it's republicans and democrats.
it's not just republicans either. people in the minority want to protect the minority until a time that they're in the minority. it makes all the sense. when you see what filibusters have done, and the changes they made are not changes that the american people can see. these are procedural changes. these are about expediteing bills to the floor. the difference with what he said they did and what the american people see what they did is so vast. they need to change it. >> cenk: i think the democrats are paid to lose. hethey take a dive, oops we didn't do filibuster reform. oops. i had a guy write to me on twitter, he said no, cenk, you don't understand. at the end of every vote you need 60 votes. in his lifetime he thinks every bill gets filibustered. noah does it seem like
filibusters were for extreme events and now they're seemed commonplace on almost every bill. >> they're commonplace if you call them filibuster. we're being very broad with the definition of a filibuster. what the senate majority did was he wanted to make sure that all the amendments to cut off debate. all of these amendments would have been debated for quite some time. he wanted to make sure that there was a vote now and he made sure there was a super majority vote and they failed. what if you had those four democratic senators who defected and you had 59 senators voting for this. you still would have had one republican to vote for this? who would that have been? how much pressure would the republicans would have been under not to give the passing vote. >> cenk: so you know, there is one part of that i agree with.
now if you offered more amendments, well, then you could have had a slightly different process. some people say it's true that they had 57 votes for concealed carry law that the republicans wanted to introduce. that would have loosened gun regulation. it's a democracy. if you're going to do anything like this so that you need a 60-vote threshold, you're going to have to do a standing filibuster like rand paul did, and not what i would call a coward filibuster and do it over and over again and not do it. if the democrats wanted to a conceal carry amendment. >> there is leverage in the government process. this story is not just about filibustering, but it's about
the gun lobby. i'm not talking just about the gun ownsers who are using their constitutional rights and enjoy enjoying it hopefully just for sport. but it is about the way the process is being manipulated. the two-party system that has developed is not actually quite functional. i think there are many, many ways we should be seriously thinking about both the lobbying mostly corporate but not only but the lobbying of the government and the fact that the two-party system has left us frequently in gridlock for a very long time. i think mostly every day people are seriously being disadvantaged and power is upwardly allocated and the democracy is in crisis. i think it's a very serious problem. much bigger than this one vote and a filibuster. >> cenk: michael, i want to ask you about something. i read about how much people care about the different issues.
gun control comes in at 4%. the issues they care most about are the economy and unemployment, we don't do anything about those because the republicans would filibuster the hell out of any stimulus bill. on the other hand, tricia's point they know the nra will come to get them. they think in the general election 4% of the people care most about this issue, even though 91% of the country disagrees with us, we might not pay a political price for it whereas we know the lobby--the gun lobby will make us pay a price for it. isn't that what is wrong with our structurally with the current democracy. >> of course that's what is wrong with it. weakening that lobby is a very important part of it. but also changing the rules of the senate is a part of it that has to meet that weakening halfway. and when you have these senators who are afraid to vote for
something because of the grade they're going to get. max baucus when he said why he didn't vote for it, one word, montana. the nra and the crazy support of max baucus. i'm not going to say it's crazy to support max baucus because they got what they wanted but they're so supportive with money you understand why the senators vote in that way. you have to change the structure of the filibuster. noah is right with four democratic senators they only would have gotten to 59 but they shouldn't have to get past 59. they shouldn't have to get past 50 on this. that's why the rules have to change. >> cenk: i want to leave here with one amazing fact. do you know because of the filibuster and the small states with two senators and the large states also only having two senators. they only need--the senators representing less than 12% of the population in this country to block any bill.
12% of the population can block any legislation the way the senate is structured now. that's crazy. there is something fundamentally wrong with that. we're going to take a break and come back and talk about immigration. and what is wrong with that. marco rubio looked like he was on a roll but now he's meeting fierce conservative resistence. interesting interparty fight there. we'll come right back.
on a program wednesday and posted thursday, count me out. the border not secured and obama cannot be trusted period. how about jim demint who helped marco rubio win his seat. he said, quote, after decades of empty promises congress similar similarly lacks credibility to keep its promises. after strategies and plans for enforcement years later he's not buying it, and he's basically saying, vote against this. so let's bring in our conservative expert noah rothman. how is this going on the conservative side? are they going to get another votes to pass it or is it going to be blocked? >> i have no idea what the congress is going to do just yet. we only begun the selling process. i would imagine the gang of eight wants this passed so badly. the republicans want a political
victory and democrats want an immigration reform i think it will be passed in congress but i think it will be troubling to pass it by the conservatives to say the least. they have been doing great work by identifying problems that are in this proposal, and a lot of it has to do with the enforcement provisions only being implemented. as far as the process has been implemented, it can be tied up in the course has to be implemented. border security has to be a priority but it does not have to be secured at a certain point so there are provisional status. these are the problems that conservatives have with this legislation. >> are you in favor of it at this point? >> i don't know enough about the legislation right now to come down for it or against it politically. it's good for the republican party to pursue immigration reform for the country. it's bad to pursue a piece of legislation that is not well thought out that is hayesly hastily
prepared. >> the democrats 71% or there thereabouts with the latin vote it seems ridiculous that the republicans are not advancing something. they're going to try to shoot themselves in the foot. i don't pretend to know the minutia about this bill like noah but they're going to say republicans voted against immigration reform and it's going to hurt them at the balance let box. --the ballot box, and i think they're looking at 2020 in some weird way. >> cenk: marco rubio, they have all these conspiracies that he's giving away free phones to illegal immigrants. >> you know, i mean, on the one hand it's funny. on the other hand it's a little bit sick. you know, as far as i am concerned for them to be unable
to treat rubio as a colleague shows you how ideologicalcally obsessive and a little bit crazy some conservatives are. he certainly has been a profound ally and is one of the better possible faces of the republican party, and he has legitimate reasons to be concerned about a kind of obsessive criminalization rhetoric that doesn't humanize the project. we've had many, many, many decades of people who have come across that in a variety of ways with and without paper and stayed with it, with or without paper. but i have a question. how are they going to secure the border? >> cenk: i think your points are well-founded. i believe the folks from the mayflower didn't have papers either. we'll come back with one more point. real immigration reform? >> with a distinctly satirical point of view. if you believe in state's rights but still believe in the drug war you must be high.